#but this is more contextually relevant

[theromanticrationalist]

My Thoughts: Young Sheldon 7x02 A Roulette Wheel and a Piano Playing Dog

Look how cute he is! Cute as a button! 😙 Awwww! Baby! It is so difficult for me to watch Sheldon struggling. Imagine being a fish out of water your entire life where your one socially acceptable trait is your intellect, which surpasses everyone��s, only to be thrown into A WHOLE OTHER COUNTRY, taking the fish metaphor to a whole other level, only to discover THE one quiver in your arsenal is utterly moot.

Damn. My poor baby string bean! But he handled it so well. He pushed through! I am proud of my Shelly! It is the aspect of why YS is better than TBBT because they allow for Sheldon to be a more complex individual and don’t treat him like a child, even though he is literally a child. The show allows circumstances to push against him, to make him stronger, and the narrative isn’t constantly belittling him as if he can’t handle life at all. It is actually quite a big deal that Sheldon was able to keep his mouth shut and humbled himself under an authority in order to learn what he needed to. And he did this by HIS choice! He listened to what those around him where telling him, and chose the wiser path. He didn’t have to be coerced, manipulated, or browbeaten into it, which was often the route TBBT took.

Well, his tutor DID use physical reinforcement, but a wrap on the hand is good for the boy. 😁

Which brings me into my next thought, I don’t think this moving back and forth from Texas and Germany is going to work really well for the storytelling. I want to see how the whole Cooper family is doing, of course, but I am primarily watching this show for Sheldon! I don’t feel like they are able to spend the amount of time necessary to really explore this experience he is having. It feels so rushed. I don’t like it. I want more time to process Sheldon’s life lessons here and how he is feeling about it. It is the same old story! This is literally one of the biggest problems with American media.

They. never. give. enough. time. to. the. story. EVER. !!!!!

🤦‍♀️ Why are you the way that you are, American Media. I hate so much everything that you choose to be.

Anyway, I did love the heart to heart chat between Missy and Georgie this episode! That was so sweet! They are learning what it means to have responsibilities and that growing up requires so much thankless sacrifice. I love the bond that Missy and Georgie have, and I am glad we got to see them process this experience together. And way to go Missy for not only stepping up, growing up, and being so mature and on top of things, but she also is learning about boundaries! Damn girl! 🔥 I know Mary Cooper loves serving her family so I love that aspect about her, but the boys definitely shouldn’t leave all the house stuff to the women folk, as if they have to be served and waited on. Missy is killing it! 💪

Missy and Sheldon, two sides of the same coin! I hope to talk more about that later! 😉 Now it’s time for...

My Favorite Sheldon Cooper Quotes: Sheldon: "And they laughed at me for not knowing something they knew! Who does that?!" Mary: ". . . you do." Sheldon: "This is no time for a teachable moment! Your child is hurting." Mary: "Sorry." *pats him on the arm* "There there." Sheldon: "I guess that'll do. Now how about a hot beverage?" Mary: 😑

Sheldon: “Oh! I see the problem! This is stupid! You can’t just invent dimensions. There is this one, this one, and this one.” Mei-Tung: “You forgot the dimension of time.” Sheldon: . . . Sheldon: *holds out his hand* Mei-Tung: *slaps it with a pencil* Sheldon: “Ow! . . . Thank you." Sheldon Prime: "I wanted to give up and runaway. But I had read enough comic books to know that heroes don't quit. Instead of running I decided to stay and face the biggest challenge I've ever had: keeping my mouth shut. This turned out to be a pivotal moment in my life. By being open to people smarter than me, I grew as both a man and a scientist. Humble. Brilliant. I really am the whole package!"

[txttletale]

if youre going to ask someone on tumblr what a word they used in their post means you should have to provide a notarized affidavit confirming you googled it alongside relevant contextual terms and looked at three or more results from the first two pages before doing so and if you can't someone comes to your house to compact your computer into a funko pop

[lina-studen]

"something floral": literature student blabbering about the usage of flower symbolism in "nevermore", how it ties to the theme of insanity and a little bit (a lot) about shakespeare.

from lenore's perspective, flowers are closely associated with isolation caused by her trauma and supposed "hysteria". floral pattern wallpaper accompanied her loneliness for days, months, even years. image of the flowers signaled that lenore's position would remain unchanged, that she was stuck, that she would continue to slowly loosing the clarity of her mind.

having torn the wallpaper off the walls, lenore believes that she will never see this image again, but flowers continue to accompanying her. lenore sees them again during her first meeting with annabel lee. and during the last one, too. she may have managed to get out of her lonely room, gain more strength in her legs, find a new friend, but lenore is still trapped. she's the daughter disowned by her parents, a stain on the family reputation that must be hidden forever. the image of flowers doesn't let her forget about it.

similar symbolism is also not alien to annabel lee. episode 66 is interesting in particular, because it directly quotes ophelia's monologue. I'm a big fan of shakespeare, it was he who instilled in me an interest in floral symbolism. a year ago, for a conference on foreign literature, I wrote an article about flower language of "hamlet". it's not available in english, but I'll list down some points that I considered relevant regarding "nevermore".

• rosemary can serve as a keepsake between lovers and also between the dead and the living. it could be seen at both weddings and funerals. in the old days it was also believed to be helpful in mental illnesses treatment.

• pansies, just like violets, symbolize innocence and devotion. ophelia doesn't consider the people around her worthy of violets, since she blames them for the death of her father.

• rue is a symbol of eternal suffering; grieving over her murdered father and the loss of her beloved hamlet, ophelia leaves some of the flowers for herself.

• the image of daisies has a close connection with the concepts of innocence, fidelity and eternal love. in shakespeare's tragedy, this symbol is overshadowed by the fact that in the world around ophelia there's no place for these beautiful things. for "nevermore" the symbol is also not so positive, since the readers are already familiar with daisies. they were on that wallpaper in lenore's room.

it's impossible not to note that annabel lee recites the monologue while in the bath, in the water. ophelia decides not to resist the river flow. her life turned into a tragedy: she was left without a father, her lover has seemingly lost his mind. her own sanity is also called into question. ophelia sings cryptic songs, goes into the field to weave a wreath, gives flowers to other characters. in the eyes of those around them, hamlet and ophelia seem crazy, while being the only sane and honest people among them. there's no place for tender, innocent ophelia in a cruel, deceitful world, so she drowns.

annabel lee also reflects on how both she and lenore are considered madwomen. her meeting with "leo" is accompanied by floral pattern on the annabel's dress. their madness is contextual, they both are perfectly sane, but don't fit into the system that could be leading to real madness with time. "all madwomen die twice. at least twice".

now about the arboretum. it obviously has a lot of flowers, but in my opinion this place is interesting in a different context. lenore and annabel visited the arboretum twice to discuss upcoming plans and such, and there are many parallels, both visual and narrative. not much time has passed since last time, but their situation has changed. they seem to look on their past selves from the upper level, having their conflict more acute now. I'll make a more detailed post about it later.

and now I'll just focus on how the characters in this arboretum full of roses behave as lost and confused as in the phobia-inducing flower labyrinth from earlier episodes. “the closer you get to beautiful flowers, the closer you get to their thorns,” says duke in episode 38. the flower imagery haunting the main characters doesn't let them forget that their sanity is always on a verge of slipping. and once a flower falls from its stem, it cannot be fixed.

p.s. guess which writer’s works I chose for a new article this year?

[satanfemme]

"what if deltarune is about the relationships between people and fictional characters" "what if the video game interface is diegetic/narratively relevant" "what if the video game creates new universes/connects different universes to each other" enough. what if I told you something beautiful.

gonna say something controversial here, but I think sometimes undertale/deltarune theorists could really benefit from reading homestuck. considering toby fox's heavy involvement in homestuck (and the community surrounding it) I think it's undeniable that hs is among his influences as a writer, and at a certain point in an ut/dr theory video analyzing nested fictions and 4th wall multiverses and video games as a meta-narrative tool about fiction or Whatever I just feel like... maybe just knowing about sburb alone would help somewhat in predicting where deltarune has the potential to go. at least if these theorists are correct in some of their base level opinions. idk.

[elipri]

Look man I too miss DamiAnya and want to learn more about Anya's and Yor's past but that doesn't mean that the current arc is "badly paced", in fact I think the pacing is actually excellent. Endo is handling an extremely sensitive (and sadly painfully relevant) topic with so much care and respect. I don't think it's a stretch that most people have been affected by war in one way or another, be it recently or in the past.

These flashbacks are also re-contextualizing two side-characters who will most likely play an important role later. Not to mention all the lore and even young Donovan!

Like Imma be real I think a good chunk of the fandom is too impatient and even counting months of when character xyz last appeared. That's not exactly fair to mangaka and their schedule. Let Endo cook!!!

[max1461]

Would you say that the distinction between high-context and low-context languages is real? I was skeptical at first, but japanese seems to leave a lot more information implicit in a typical utterance than english.

No such distinction is used (or at least commonplace enough that I have heard of it) in linguistics. If one were to introduce such a distinction, they would have to put forth some way to measure or operationalize "low/high-contextuality"; in the absence of that there's very little I can say about it scientifically.

What I can say is that laymen's subjective impressions about "what different languages are like" are very often more grounded in bias than in fact. There was a good post that went around here a few months ago to the effect of

People everywhere: "[Language I learned in childhood] is so subtle and emotive, whereas [language I learned in adulthood] is so cold and logical".

Often, these subjective impressions then get filtered through the cultural-theorizing-industry and elaborated more and more, becoming more entrenched as "established wisdom" about X or Y language among non-linguists, and in the process getting farther and farther from any real or verifiable truth.

Well anyway, I think the claim that "Japanese is more contextual than English" is probably one of those. Until someone comes up with a real metric for "contexuality", at least, I will probably continue to judge that to be the most reasonable hypothesis. Here are two ways such an impression could have come about:

For English speakers who learn Japanese as adults, things which are left to context in English but not in Japanese will not appear to be "absent" and they won't notice any gaps, whereas things that are left to context in Japanese but not English will strike them as "absent" and they will be more aware of them.

English speakers who speak some Japanese but are not proficient will not in fact be fully familiar with the rules governing the interpretation of utterances, and so things which are actually grammatically determined may appear to rely on nebulous "context".

Here is a salient difference between English and Japanese: in Japanese, any noun phrase may be dropped "when its meaning can be contextually determined". For example, you might say

(1) kinou inu ga nikki tabe-chat-ta! yesterday dog SUBJ diary eat-COMP-PST "yesterday my dog ate my diary!"

(2) wanpaku da yo naa naughty COP ASS TAG "he's sure naughty"

In (1), we see that where English has possessive pronouns ("my"), Japanese doesn't use them. In (2), the noun phrase referring to the dog is dropped entirely. In fact, in both of these sentences, not dropping these things would be considered unnatural and stilted. Overuse of pronouns and NPs is a common marker of non-fluent Japanese as spoken by Westerners. Saying

(3) kinou watashi no inu ga / yesterday me GEN dog SUBJ / watashi no nikki tabe-chat-ta! me GEN diary eat-COMP-PST "yesterday my dog ate my diary!"

instead of (1) would technically not be ungrammatical, but would be markedly foreign sounding and corrected immediately in any intro Japanese class.

However, this already tells you something: the fact that (3) is unambiguously unfelicitous tells you that there are some underlying rules here, it isn't just "drop when you feel it". These rules are called information structure rules, and every language has them. In fact, Japanese explicitly marks information structure in a number of ways that English does not.

Some of the basic rules in Japanese of relevance here (this is a fairly crude analysis and does not account for various things, but it's probably good enough for our purposes) are:

Every discourse has a topic

If no topic is specified, the speaker is by default assumed to be the topic

A non-topic subject may be introduced into the discourse with ga

A noun already in the discourse may be made into the topic with wa

A salient subject already introduced, but not explicitly topicalized with wa, may be implicitly topicalized

Empty NP positions and unmarked possessors should be taken to refer to the topic

Items that are (semantically speaking) likely to be possessed should be interpreted as possessed before they are interpreted as indefinites

These rules are not inviolable, and in particular (5) requires some contextual definition of "salience" and (6) is certainly not this simple in reality (there are often multiple empty NP positions and the full ruleset for interpreting them seems complex; for instance subject positions are favored for topics over object positions and so on), so there is still some amount of combinatorics with referents and syntactic positions that presumably is going on somewhere in speakers' brains or whatever. But the point is that these rules narrow down pretty starkly what interpretations are "reasonable", and the actual role of context in disambiguating between reasonable interpretations is not so vast.

Anyway, using the above rules, it is not so hard to go through (1) and (2) again, and see that only a single reasonable interpretation actually presents itself.

As mentioned, Japanese very often makes information structure explicit using the particles wa, ga, and wo (not mentioned above, but the object equivalent of ga), which is somewhat uncommon among the languages of the world. English, on the other hand, does not do this. English speakers do not drop noun phrases, but they still replace noun phrases with pronouns very readily, and disambiguating pronoun referents uses pragmatic and information structure rules of exactly the same type! Consider, for instance

(4) My boyfriend went on a "boys trip" with Will and Tod last weekend... I told him not to let them pressure him into skinny dipping again. What was up with that anyway?

Think about what you're doing when you assign referents to these pronouns. It's automatic so you don't notice it, but is it unambiguous? Not at all! You know, for instance, that "him" refers to the boyfriend and "them" to Will and Tod, and you know in the second sentence that "that" refers to peer pressure skinny dipping. Some of this (in particular the referent of "that") I think has to be chalked up to pure context; it's the semantics from which we derive the correct assignment. But some of it is mediated by syntactic or information structure rules as well; for instance consider

(5) Jacob went on a "boys trip" with Will and Tod last weekend... I told him not to let them pressure him into skinny dipping again.

We are still able to produce the correct pronoun assignments in this sentence, even though the semantic context which informs us about which one of these people the speaker is most likely the closest to has been removed. This is, again, a product of information structure rules: Jacob is the topic here, and so (by whatever rules operate in English; not identical but not dissimilar to those in Japanese) we infer that "him" refers to Jacob.

Anyway, the point is that all languages make reference to context very freely in matters of interpretation (which is a big part of why language models had to develop implicit world knowledge before they could speak convincingly), and also languages make reference to context in a structured way which can often be described fairly precisely, and which leaves less open to chance and misinterpretation than might initially be assumed. The gulf between English and Japanese is not so large here. It might be the cases that the [pronouns + unmarked topicalization]-English system is more explicit than the [empty NP positions + marked topicalization]-Japanese system, but I don't know. And of course it might be the case that in some other domain of grammar Japanese is more explicit than English. So one must be careful with any broad assertions.

[roach-works]

furiosa's hair

okay after a few days to chew on it i think here's what made me so deeply, resentfully uncomfortable about furiosa's long hair: it was a normative signifier. it broke the fourth wall, it broke the immersion, it broke the world she actually inhabited, in order to signal to US IN THE AUDIENCE that our culture's concept of womanhood was normal, correct, and relevant.

like, furiosa kept exiting these explicitly female positions-- she was taken from the green place, she rejected her position as dementus's daughter, and she escaped the immortan's harem. but again and again her long hair didn't mark the passage of time so much as it marked her AS A WOMAN, as a woman recognizable to us, as a girl, as a cisgender, heterosexual woman just trying to survive the expected cruelty's of man's world. it was meant to keep categorizing her as female in a way we all understand. long hair = girl, despite how dementus and the immortan also maintain long hair. unlike the men, though, her hair wasn't meant to be a symbol of power or freedom or even savagery, just that she was still a woman.

and i think that really bothers me because there was this whole time where, to survive, she became a boy, she lived as a boy, she didn't talk so no one would hear her voice, and whether or not she was masquerading as male or genuinely fluidly taking on a new gender in that life stage, she still somehow for some reason cultivated long and flowing hair, so at a dramatic moment we the viewers get the confirmation that yes she's certainly a beautiful woman, not a boy. she has a gender and it's our kind of gender! the normal kind! just your regular tough but beautiful woman's gender situation!

it bugs me. the furiosa of fury road, with her shaved head and powerfully confrontational violence, occupies a deliberately obscure gender space. she's got female pronouns but is macho as hell, she moves and acts and commands as a part of this intensely patriarchal structure, she's the exception that proves the immortan's rule, she embodies a ton of contradictions without explanation or apology.

a long haired furiosa feels like that apology. here's a furiosa that's younger, prettier, more reassuring, less confusing. here's a gender situation you can recognize: here's what women are and here's what men are! you already know this one!

here's a woman who takes power and commits violence without asking us any questions about how artificial, contextual, and permeable the laws of gender actually are. she's pretty even as she kills men, because she's not a man, because women aren't men, because women are beautiful. because women are for looking at and liking what you see. because what's the point of a woman you don't want to see?

it just bugs me.

[srbachchan]

DAY 6057

Jalsa, Mumbai Sept 17, 2024 Tue 11:26 pm

The impotency of content :

"The term "impotency of content" suggests a situation where content—whether in the form of text, media, or other forms of communication—fails to achieve its intended purpose or lacks meaningful impact. This concept can be explored from multiple angles, including the relevance of the content, its delivery, and the broader context in which it exists.

Content becomes impotent when it fails to resonate with its intended audience. Relevance is key; if content does not address the needs, interests, or concerns of its audience, it is likely to be ignored or dismissed. For instance, a marketing campaign that does not align with the target demographic's values or preferences is unlikely to generate engagement or drive sales. Similarly, academic content that lacks practical application or fails to address current research gaps can be deemed impotent in the context of advancing knowledge or solving real-world problems.

Even if content is relevant, its effectiveness can be diminished by poor delivery. This includes factors like the format, accessibility, and clarity. Content that is poorly organized, difficult to navigate, or presented in an unappealing format may fail to capture and maintain the audience’s attention. For example, a well-researched academic paper presented in dense, jargon-laden prose might be ignored by those who could benefit from its findings. Effective delivery involves not just the substance but also the style and method of presentation, ensuring that the content is engaging and accessible.

In today’s information-rich environment, content is often lost in a sea of competing messages. The sheer volume of content available can lead to saturation, where individual pieces struggle to stand out or make an impact. This is particularly relevant in digital media, where algorithms and social media platforms amplify popular or sensational content while less eye-catching material may be overlooked. In this context, even valuable content can become impotent if it cannot rise above the noise. Content must be timely and contextually appropriate to be impactful. Content that is outdated or irrelevant to current events or trends can quickly lose its significance. For instance, historical analysis or commentary that does not consider contemporary developments might appear disconnected or obsolete. Understanding the broader context in which content is produced and consumed is crucial for ensuring its relevance and impact.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of content is measured by its ability to engage and elicit a response from its audience. Content that does not prompt interaction, reflection, or action is often considered impotent. This engagement is not just about attracting attention but also about fostering meaningful connections and responses. Content that encourages dialogue, provides value, or inspires action is more likely to be perceived as potent and impactful.

In conclusion, the "impotency of content" underscores the abd not a word about the mediaimportance of relevance, delivery, and context in determining the effectiveness of communication. To avoid impotency, content creators must carefully consider their audience’s needs, ensure their delivery methods are effective, and remain mindful of the broader information landscape. By addressing these factors, content can transcend its potential impotence and fulfill its purpose, whether that be to inform, persuade, entertain, or inspire."

and hahaha .. 🤣 and not a word about media for which it was intended .. the most protected, educated, ultimate genre in this Universe ..

Love and in the more of reality ..

Amitabh Bachchan

[silvyavan]

Some of yall ain't ready to hear this (partly because I'm sleep deprived) but Asta is literally disabled in the Canon premise and it IS contextually important.

Asta, being manaless, is literally not able to do many things which in BC universe can be considered basic household skills or if he can, the way he has to do it would culturally be seen as a more roundabout and tiring way of doing it.

Broom Flying is a literal main form of transportation in Clover, similar to a bike and Asta cannot fucking use that. My midget king had to fucken experiment with his sword to turn it into a mobility aid to fly like everyone else. Hell, we get it in the first episode that any form of chore that Asta does "normally" (as per the audience) is something that Yuno can do in quick succession due to his magic. Is magic picky on what you can do with it in terms of household duties? Yeah, but every magic has SOME form of relevance in the household.

Antimagic can't count because its only useful against malicious mages or traps which, all in all, can't really offer a lot of flexibility. Hell, Asta could only figure out how to fly outside of Black form 2 whole ass years after he got his grimoire. And even then, NONE of Asta's swords are creation or healing spells, so Magic Knights technically IS the only place he can utilise his grimoire in.

Communication devices and other mana tools, chores that, by magic standards, need magic to be done efficiently and quickly, even FOOD (Heart Kingdoms coconut water being only sweet if you have high mana).

Even the poorest peasant in the boonies has mana. Asta does Not.

And even if he could get stronger and adapt antimagic to straight up anything, Devil Binding ritual and recent arc in Hino shows us that, physically, there are some limits he can't break. Actual, BIOLOGICAL, burnout and lack of professional tutelage/help reasons.

It also puts a lot of his social/inter-political challenges in a bigger depth and with more nuanced realism.

The nobles refuse to acknowledge him as a possible candidate for being the Wizard King because they see him as physically incapable of holding up the mantle, much less actually being one. The court throws him under the bus because its much easier and comfortable for them to sacrifice one orphan who can't even use mana than to make a massive rift between the population and the military when the kingdom is vulnerable, since they believe they wouldn't be losing anything. Hell, most of the captains don't even acknowledge him as an asset until Asta straight up busts his ass/arms with massive feats.

It also adds more value to his relationship with the Black Bulls and Yuno. Yuno DOES acknowledge Asta as a rival, and a very serious one too. His lack of mana isn't a reason for Yuno to be condescending or dismissive of him.

Black Bulls are also, in some part, similar to him and as such, inspiring them to be better as well (Noelle's mana control difficulties, Finral's spell execution and energy consumption issues, Henry's curse, everyone's literal trauma holding them back).

[archiveofliterature]

that one line about ramy's bangla being rudimentary made me absolutely sob (i'm bengali) and i wanna talk about why

there's so much to it both contextually with ramy's character as well as historically. contextually because ramy is fluent in 6 languages, an insane number of languages for one person but none of which are his mother tongue. he's described as a performer, one who knows he can't blend in so instead he stands out as a means to escape as much of the racism as he can. he gets lost in it that he almost forgets who he is; this is reflected in his language ability too – he gets so lost in his linguistic academics he just barely remembers the native language of his home place that he adores.

and honestly, you can't even really blame ramy for it at all when it was induced. it's the british who saw urdu, arabic and persian as more valuable than bangla, it's the british that make ramy put on this act so he can literally stay alive. and when you know the historical relevancies between urdu and bangla, it hurts so much that ramy was forced to forget bangla

very brief history context: after the partition, where british india was split into india, pakistan and east pakistan (now bangladesh) bangla was seen as inferior to urdu due to its hindu connections. bengalis experienced so much shit because of this (and bengali muslims are still dealing with the internalised cultural racism today honestly). pakistanis tried to make the official language urdu, even though literally everyone in east pakistan were bengali and spoke bangla, so bengalis fought back against it. we still celebrate that day today (feb 21)

so to have ramy be in this position in the 1830s where urdu was seen as superior to bangla, especially when ramy is a bengali muslim, is just extremely accurate?? and maybe it's bc we don't have much western literature where we talk about this but it's just so nice to have it acknowledged

the bangla language movement didn't happen until around the 1950s, over a century after babel's timeline, but the seeds are always there. while i do think it comes with both this islamic superiority tendency a lot of asians have (arabs i'm looking at you) and britian's imperialistic racism, i just love how it all makes sense

[cloudmancy]

I like that emily decided to engage with her foil but idk I wish she were more.. curious about him? like she heard the lyrics and decided on a path and it's a magical path, but we still don't really know anything about him or about his uncle or anything. so like the wanda childa of it all is incredible. but it's still a little bit, like, not contextualized in a way where it feels like, relevant to his character. like idk I wish she maybe tried to have a conversation or two with him not as wanda, to get a sense of who he is, ykwim?

[id: ask reading "I do think the rat grinders were made to be engaged with by brennan. I just think there's a deep lack of curiosity because the bad kids decided they knew the rat grinders whole deal after like half a conversation and didn't bother trying to know any of them. the closest anyone came was fig fucking with ruben but that wasn't even engaging with him because we learned nothing about him, it was just psychologically torturing him based on a song lyric. she did not know enough about him to know if the torment was warranted, or even doing anything significant."]

I think both of you bring up a great point... in that regard kristen was the one who both interacted with AND emphasized with her foil the most. she had a lot of really good interactions with buddy dawn and that nat 1 at the beginning of the finale's combat will always haunt me. at the same time I cannot blame emily for not wanting to engage with ruben anymore like... she spent a ton of time this season rolling on ruben, trying to turn him. she made that 30 performance check and brennan told us we'd see the consequences of that later... and we didn't! if my DM didn't reward me consistently reaching out to and being curious about my foil I'd give up at some point too. like, the bad kids cast counterspell during frosty faire to protect ruben from grix - when ruben saw wanda childa during the finale fight he didn't even try to protect or counterspell anything for her. and that more than anything is why I found it all so disappointing. the way these kid were played in the battle didn't make them feel like the characters we've been interacting with all season - it's like nothing between them and the bad kids had an impact on them at all.

[keystonepublishing]

Psychological Warfare of the Malayan Emergency by Herbert A. Friedman (Ret.)

Have you ever been taught a version of history at school that seems weirdly simplistic? And then years later, you find more evidence that shows the whole affair was a giant, complicated mess?

Guess what I learned over the past few months about the Malayan Emergency.

For context, the Malayan Emergency was a conflict that raged in the British colony of Malaya from 1948 until the 1960s between communist forces and the British government, later continued by the independent Malayan government. The government forces won, but any school teachings of the conflict was presented in a manner that simplified the complex (and often, grey) nature of the Emergency.

I knew since then that a lot of truths were hidden away, but I didn't realize that there was a psychological aspect to the Emergency until I stumbled upon this webpage by a retired military officer about it. Given the length of the information provided and that it's the only one of it's kind — and therefore at risk of information loss if deleted, I sought to bookbind it. Pictures and all.

Given the amount of information contained and the sheer number of images, this project took about a month!

I had to divide the continuous stream of information in the webpage into readable chapters.

Then, I had to layout the images with the text, which was actually harder than expected — the size of the image could shift relevant text into the following pages, so it was a process of balancing image size to textual placement.

In-between that was the regular work of typesetting, but also of formatting quotes and examples, of which there were a lot.

And then there were pages that required special attention. For example, these pages:

The pages on the right was relatively simple — a double-sided leaflet that could be showcased in a double-page spread, with contextual information in the following pages.

On the left however, to create the list of dead / living people, I had to finagle a table in Microsoft Word and constantly adjust the cell size to make the long names and positions fit. The whole endeavor was an exercise in patience.

Leafing through the pages, there are some parts I am annoyed with, such as pictures on the right page with their annotated message in the following left page. But as it is, I'm just glad this is done.

Special thanks to SGM Herbert A. Friedman (Ret.) for compiling this information that astonished me to create this bookbind.

[novlr]

Weird question here: do I need to describe my character's clothes? Obviously I need to if it's important to the story or setting (if they're wearing a beautiful ruby gown at a ball, or maybe dirty and torn to indicate a fight) but just on a normal day? Do readers need to know what characters are wearing?

The issue of whether or not to describe a character’s clothes is a common dilemma faced by many creative writers. The answer to this question, however, is not a simple one. It ultimately depends on the specific context and requirements of your story. Let’s dive into how to strike the right balance in descriptions of clothing, and when it helps or hurts your narrative pacing.

When should you describe a character’s clothes?

Setting the tone and atmosphere

In scenes where the character’s clothes significantly contribute to the setting or atmosphere of the story, a detailed description is good to include. A vivid description can immerse a reader fully in the scene. Examples could include a fancy gown at a ball or an inappropriate costume at a house party.

Defining characters

Clothes have the potential to be a powerful tool in defining your character, as they can reflect their social status, personality traits, and even their current mood or mindset. Whether it’s a sleek suit that exudes sophistication or a colourful ensemble that showcases their vibrant personality, the clothes your character wears can provide valuable insights into who they are when they are first introduced.

Moving the plot forward

The type of clothing a character wears can help to move your plot forward. A character in a magician’s robe, for instance, can spark reader curiosity but also heighten anticipation for the future role they may have in the story. It becomes a visual cue, subtly hinting at the possibility of magic and the potential impact the character might have on the story’s unfolding events.

When should you not describe a character’s clothing?

When it doesn’t add anything to the story

It is important to consider whether a description of a character’s clothing adds crucial information to the story or character development. If it doesn’t serve a purpose in enhancing the plot or providing insights into the character’s traits, it is usually best left out. Instead, focus on elements that truly matter and contribute to the narrative.

When it slows down the story

Detailing every piece of clothing in every scene can result in a slow progression of the story. While it is important to create a vivid and immersive world for your readers, focusing too much on clothing descriptions can detract from the overall pace and flow of your narrative. Instead, prioritize the elements that truly matter to the plot and character development. Choose key moments or scenes where the character’s clothing holds significance, such as pivotal events or instances where what they wear contributes to the atmosphere.

When it distracts from plot development

Detailed descriptions of clothing can sometimes divert readers’ attention away from the main plot and essential details of the story. When the focus on clothing becomes excessive, it can interrupt the flow of the narrative and hinder the development of more crucial elements.

Strike the right balance

It’s all about striking the right balance. Descriptions are necessary when they have a purpose and impact on the story or characters. Consider the following tips to accurately depict your character’s clothing:

Do not overload your description in a single paragraph. Distribute it throughout the story.

Maintain variety. Describe different aspects of clothing in different scenes.

Keep it relevant and contextual.

[hikaritakaishi]

Digimon Adventure 02: The Beginning [My Movie Review]

♡ ! SPOILER ALERT! ♡

This review will contain spoilers of the movie, continue reading if you already saw the movie, or just don’t mind the spoiler! Enjoy & comment something if you want to share an opinion! ♡

After what seemed ages of waiting, Digimon Adventure 02: The Beginning finally aired in Portugal, on May 16, 2024, several months after it’s national premiere in Japan, on October 27, 2023. I was worried that it wouldn't come to my country, but perhaps due to the huge acceptance of Digimon Adventure: LAST EVOLUTION KIZUNA, the distributor made the hearts of the DigiDestined from the most hidden corner of Europe warm again and brought us the sequel. Thank you remembering us once again! ♡

I really tried to keep my expectations as neutral as possible until the day I went to see the movie, which was pretty difficult, due to the fact that I was constantly being bombarded with online information about it, whether on Tumblr or Twitter, or through video recommendations on Youtube. I was so excited for the movie, that I had to control myself immensely not to go see the spoilers.

Initial considerations? I like it. In general. But let's go in parts!

This will be an analysis of what I consider to be the most important points of the movie and what caught my attention the most. A personal analysis, so don't take it too seriously if I don't talk about a certain point or a certain specific topic, I probably just missed that.

Firstly, I would like to comment on the initial dynamics of the movie.

Everything seems to happen much faster here than it did in Kizuna. Despite being two movies with practically the same time span, this one seemed to go by much faster. But it might just be me. [LAST EVOLUTION KIZUNA have 94 minutes, and The Beginning have 87 minutes total].

 We're introduced to the key plot problem pretty quickly too.

People's digital devices are glitching, and the same message is repeating itself on all of them, not just on the phones and televisions, but on computers and large digital screens in cities all around the world. And this all around the world is very important, because it not only brings us closer to what will be the future of humanity and it’s increasing contact with the Digimon and the Digital World, but it opens the path we take since 2012 [time of the movie] until to the epilogue of 02 (which the production team and Toei animation seem to insist on wanting to keep canon, despite all the script inconsistencies it can cause, or how different from the initial profile of each character it may be).

“May everyone have friends, may everyone have a partner Digimon”

It's the message. Meanwhile, we are told that a suspicious and unknown Digitama appeared in the sky of Tokyo, right above the Tokyo Tower, and it’s been there for a while. Taichi and Koushiro are showned to be trying to help resolve this issue as professionals in the field of diplomacy and technology respectively, but without major progress.

I think it's important to highlight that they are the only two characters from the first season of Adventure who appear in this movie, and even so, without any direct speech or great relevance, beyond contextualization, and later Taichi as well again for the context of “space- time”, in that frame we see in the trailer of the movie with Hikari, which we later discover is located in Hikarigaoka, where Rui also lived when he had his first contact with Ukkomon.

The focus is on the characters from 02, or at least, it should have been. But as in Digimon Adventure Tri, this focus is overshadowed by the introduction of another new character in the story: Rui Owhada [or Lui, in Japanese pronunciation].

Rui [or Lui] is a much more charismatic character than Meiko was in Digimon Adventure Tri. There is no doubt about that.

Meiko was a somewhat empty character. A static character without great charisma. The only pleasant scenes she had were driven by the other characters around her (namely Mimi).

Rui doesn't. Rui is a character on his own. With a much more aggressive personality and a much more interesting past. The only issue here is the length of the movie: This movie is too short; too short for us to get attached to this character and actually be able feel empathy for everything we are shown about him. So short, that it's difficult to develop both this new character and the others around him, which, by the way, is a shame.

I mostly went to see the movie in hopes to see more from the 02 cast, and not because, again, of a random character they created for this new script. Just like what happened in Tri.

And this is important because notice that one of the most complex and best-built characters in the Adventure universe is literally the character with the most screen time: Takeru.

Analyzing Takeru's character as a whole is extremely time-consuming, because he was in every season, and practically involved in all the main events of the plot, either by himself or through the relationships he establishes throughout the plot, which feed the character's emotional charge. Which makes him a very complex character.

There's no time for that here. There is no time to establish a relationship between Rui and the other characters, nor to establish a relationship between Rui… and the audience.

Rui's childhood is very shocking and once again, Digimon brings a very strong narrative based on a complex and deep family plot.

We had already had examples in Adventure of family issues with Takeru and Yamato, Koushiro, and in 02 with Iori and also Ken. To a certain extent, even with Miyako. But here we reach a higher level of complexity... and violence (remember that the age to see the movie is over 12 years old. I can totally understand why).

Rui is physically abused and neglected by his mother, who leaves him out in the cold, starving when he makes a childish mistake or does something she doesn't like... when he is only four years old. His father has a very serious illness and depends on his wife to survive. Rui is then shown as a sorrowful child, lonely and without any support network. We've never had anything in the Digimon Adventure series so… raw. The aura of the movie is deeply heavy and dark.

The evolutions and battles in this movie are far from being the focus, which probably frustrated many people who went to see the movie for this more dynamic side of the anime.

It is a film with a moral content and even touches on the philosophical, about the bonds we create with others and their nature, about how we should relate to others and learn about them every day we have them in our lives.

It's about healthy communication, and how it's okay to correct the people around us, as long as it's made based with pure intentions. Because love is not omissive. Love corrects, love draws the other's attention for what really matters, in the form of love. In the form of companionship. Nothing physical or superficial is worth the price of a real bond.

The movie really grew with it’s audience. It is not, at all, a movie targeted for new fans of the franchise, or for those who know little about the Adventure series universe. It's for those who know the characters, for those who grew up with them. If you don't know the characters, you will miss details and conversations that are important to really understand the plot as a whole.

Daisuke and Ken look on Rui’s past with him. They see the arrival of Ukkomon in his life, who should’ve bring peace and comfort, but it is only the beginning of all his problems.

Let's take a break from the movie's plot to talk about the characters of 02.

I'm going to divide them into groups, because it seems like they individually… don't have much progress or very memorable scenes, honestly. It doesn't even make sense to separate them, in my opinion, and you'll understand why.

♡ Daisuke & Iori

There is not much to talk about them here. Daisuke and Iori are the flattest characters in the movie. Iori much more than Daisuke, let's be honest. Iori barely speaks, and has very few relevant scenes.

Daisuke works at a ramen restaurant, as he always wanted, where he gathers his friends to talk about the problems they are facing right at the beginning of the movie.

His personality is practically the same, Daisuke from 02 is the same Daisuke from The Beginning, and even the same character as in Kizuna, he is just taller here and wears different clothes. He still aspires to have his own ramen business and is extremely focused on his career goals. Which was predictable, given the way he talks about his dream in 02.

Daisuke's only two relevant scenes are seconds long: the first when he convinces Rui that the bond of friendship he and his Digimon partner share is much more than something superficial; it's something that comes from the heart, and that no object makes a difference between them, namely the Digivice, (something we also expected to hear from Daisuke in 02, which justifies my opinion that in the meantime... he remains the same).

The other is a scene that had enormous potential, but is cut short by a comical moment in which Miyako pops up.

Daisuke is talking to Ken seriously about Rui, and how he and his Digimon could understand each other better if they just communicate more effectively and directly, and Ken comments that Daisuke's more serious side is very pleasant and rarely appears. However, Miyako speaks up and dismisses the subject. Sadly.

We could have had a conversation here that could tell us more about Daisuke’s presente self and way he sees life now.

*sigh* Anyway.

Iori, again, doesn't speak much. Seems to only have intermediary interventions, and serves as a “pair” for Daisuke and Rui in the snowball fight that we see at the end of the movie. A very beautiful scene, don't get me wrong, but only if we see it from the perspective of Ken and Miyako, and Hikari and Takeru. I'll talk about that now.

♡ Ken & Miyako

Ken and Miyako are two characters who seem to grow more together than apart within the movie's plot. Which is natural, given that we know at the end of 02 that they become in fact a couple, and that they build a family together in the future. Here we see the first steps towards their future as a couple.

As expected, nothing explicit or direct is given to us about the nature of their relationship, but we can understand that there is progress, especially by the end of the movie, before the snowball fight, when Miyako tells Ken something that seems extremely vague, but actually means something.

 “Let's do it together! "  What? I don't think they are aware yet. Ken also seemed very confused about it.

“ Keep thinking Ken, we have to find another solution. “ We also see Miyako trying to support Ken at that moment when they have to make a decision about the future of Ukkomon and the world.

Here comes what I said above: Love cannot be omissive. We cannot expect the least from those we love. If we know the potential of the person we have by our side, we have to support them. If we see that they are trying to go further, we must support their journey and be a source of advice and rest. Alone we can go faster, but with the right company we can certainly go further.

And I think this is where the movie touches on something really important.

It is in these small moments that we see that they really want to tell the audience something beyond, but we need to have a fine power of perception.

No conversation or comment is random, everything contributes to the story. Digimon Adventure has always been made up of metaphors and subjectivities, it is necessary to know how to interpret and be attentive.

In the midst of that dilemma of whether or not to defeat Ukkomon that we talked about a moment ago in relation to Ken and Miyako, we have another moment that I consider important between Takeru and Hikari, which for those who don't know the characters, can take it as a normal conversation of two people who know each other well. Too well, even.

♡ Takeru & Hikari

Keeping in mind their journey, and everything they went through together, is the key to understand the nature of the relationship they share now. But before that:

Much like Ken and Miyako, Takeru and Hikari do not exist separately in the plot. It's ridiculously difficult to separate them. If you talk about one, you have to talk about the other.

At the beginning we see them together in the city when the electronic devices break down, and this dynamic continues throughout the entire movie.

They practically always walk side by side, Hikari takes the front seat in Takeru's car, and even when they are talking to Rui and trying to understand what happened to him in his past, they were a nucleus apart from the others. Nothing new, really. More of the same. But it's in that conversation I spoke about earlier that we understand something that is even part of the main moral of the movie: the way they now communicate with each other now, is different.

Anyone who has followed Takeru and Hikari throughout the series knows that the main “problem” in their relationship has always been direct communication.

Exposing things to others as they are is scary. And none of them were good at doing that.

Deliberating about feelings, exposing what disturbs us, what distresses us, what we think of a certain attitude of the other person. That was always Takeru and Hikari's problem and what hindered the possible evolution of their friendship, into a real love relationship.

In Tri we discover that Hikari starts to look at Takeru differently. And we know that Takeru has concrete feelings for Hikari (Said by the actor who plays Takeru's voice) And then? It's done? Things… are much more complicated than that.

They first need to accept the situation in question (And I tell you this as someone who also developed a romantic relationship with a childhood friend. It's not easy. Trust me. It's far from easy!)

And far from being quick.

It requires a lot of deliberation mostly. Just accepting the fact that we see that person we grew up with differently, someone who has always been part of our life, and we can lose them. Just because we developed feelings. Is scary. There's a lot to lose. It's all or nothing. Especially when one side has trauma associated with romantic relationships. (remembering that Takeru's parents are divorced) it's even worse.

What seems to exist between them in The Beginning was the result of a long process. But effective, it seems to me. Whatever decision they made, it went… pretty well.

Takeru is completely against defeating Ukkomon, from the moment he realizes that this could also imply the disappearance of his Digimon partner.

He probably saw the suffering Taichi and Yamato went through when Agumon and Gabumon disappeared and the suffering he would go through if he lose Patamon... again. And he is extremely vocal and firm in what he says and what he thinks about all of that. Impulsive really.

Until Hikari intervenes. Which cuts through his catastrophic reasoning. She asks him to think, opening up a new perspective on the situation.

Here we have a conversation between them that is quite lengthy (compared to the fast action standard of the rest of the movie) in which Hikari tries her best to make Takeru use reason and not emotion in his deliberation on the situation.

Takeru who, remember, whenever “darkness” or “sacrifice” is mentioned, leaves his rationality aside, becomes blind with pain because of his past traumas.

Hikari's role here is almost the same as Miyako’s in Ken's case: calling to earth and calming Takeru, always in an understanding way, because you can see that she knows where that feeling comes from and that position initially adopted by him (and it is something which she can almost predict would happen, by the speed with which she responds) but she knows that he is better than those triggers that make him impulsively speak based on emotion and neglect reason.

It's about getting to know each other. Knowing how to talk to our person about the most difficult topics. Because it is necessary to strengthen your union. Predict reactions, and be there to calm them down, because you may even know that the person is not to blame for the feelings and traumas they carry, but believe that they are bigger than them. And expect the same from the other side.

The way Miyako knew that Ken could find a solution, he just needed to think a little more. Hikari understood perfectly where Takeru's impulsive reaction came from, but she knew that if she appeal to his racional side he would be able to think of a better alternative to the problem, which he thought would be the end of the world.

That's why I separated this analysis into groups (although the first one isn't... substantial) and decided to analyze the characters together, because that's what this movie is about.

It's about who you are with your people, and the bond you share with them. In a world so individualized, so selfish and so distant (largely because of technology, which distances us from each other), I found it a very necessary message.

And the role of adults? With children and more painful lives?

It is to understand that children are also humans. Who also think, and feel, and understand things. Just like them. Adults tend to forget that they were once children themselves.

We already saw this topic being developed in Adventure 02, but seeing Rui as an adult, reaching to his mother in the past, and drawing her attention to the fact that she neglects her son, is something very touching. Sometimes, we just need a wake-up call, and we can change the future. Ours, and our future with others.

 The DigiDestined of 02 encouraged Rui not to give up on someone he loved, Ukkomon, because after all, he only acted the way he acted because he thought it would make Rui happier, even though he failed. Several times.

Ukkomon basically gave Rui everything he thought he needed, everything he wanted. But this is not always ideal.

He acted with his partner's happiness in mind, and this blinded him to the risks he was putting him into. He idealized their entire relationship, and everyone's relationship with him. Instead of being, real. And real things are never perfect.

Rui wanted friends? He gave him friends. He even reprogrammed his parents. They became manufactured humans. And the movie is about reality and accepting it as imperfect as it is.

Do you know what that reminded me of? That whole fantasy created by Ukkomon of “perfect world where Rui is never sad and everything is wonderful?” The fantasies in which the characters from 02 cast were trapped in at the end of the series. That world created with the characters’ deepest desires.

Takeru wanted his family united. Iori wanted his father back and to be able to show him the Digital Word. Miyako wanted attention. Ken… wanted to redeem himself. Hikari wanted peace. It's exactly the same thing.

Think about it with me: For example, Takeru's parents could’ve stay together, they could never have divorced, but they would still have problems. They would argue, and there would be conflicts. Which doesn't mean that this wouldn't traumatize their children even more. Maybe the divorce was in fact the best option for all four of them.

Ken felt he deserved the same suffering he inflicted on others. Would that really be the answer to appease his soul?

But none of it was real.

Not even Hikari's utopia of a world constantly at peace is real. Not even the absence of siblings in Miyako's life would solve anything. Things are not black and white and really, what we want is not always what we need.

Rui just needed to talk to Ukkomon and be sincere.

Where is Mimi tho?!

I will end with a few quick notes that I think are worth highlighting: First, the music and animation in general. As expected, they are excellent.

Very well done visually, appealing scenes, and the last snowball fight scene is so simple… but so delightful.

Life is made up of beautiful moments as well as tragic moments, light and darkness.

Did you notice that part of the movie takes place in a much dark environment, and when the main action is resolved, the movie gains light? I believe that is not just because!

Visually it can be very strong because there is blood, there is violence, there are physical wounds, it conveys the affliction in a very literal way.

Another thing that was expected to happen, but that probably wasn't even thought of properly when the Epilogue of 02 was made, was the problematic of whether or not everyone deserves, has enough morals and ethics, to have a Digimon partner.

How do you maintain peace between humans when you give them free access to machines of war and mass destruction? How do we build the world we see bz the end of 02 where everyone lives in peace even under these circumstances? Which is the the role of the government?

We'll probably need one more movie to find out.

Honestly, I hope you enjoyed this short (not... that short in fact) and sincere review. If I were to give stars, I would give the film 4/5 stars.

It could’ve been better, sure, if there was at least another half hour of animation.

But I don't complain. Despite that, I liked it. I cried, I laughed, just like I cried and laughed when I saw Digimon in my childhood, and that's everything for me. I was surprised by the message of the movie and the way they chose to visually convey it to us. Either way, I hope there's one more movie. To finally conclude the arc of all these characters, and finally, reach the epilogue of 02 (but in a dignified way please).

♡ Thank you once again Digimon ♡

[corviiids]

hello if you are still accepting death note submissions, how about astarion

amazing submission thank you

verdict: no to both investigative questions. could astarion beat kira? probably, but not the normal way.

could astarion intuit the mechanics of the death note

no.

could astarion identify light yagami

no.

listen. i love astarion very much. he's very clever. but only in all the wrong directions. he has no ability to plan ahead. or really plan at all. he's too impatient to sit around and analyse clues. his plan for beating cazador was to walk into cazador's palace fuck around and find out. 10000% he couldn't beat light at his own game, so that's out, but honestly it might be more effective to beat light yagami NOT at his own game (like ending a chess game by just upending the chessboard) because L tried that and it didn't really work out.

what im saying is if the rest of the worm gang figures out that light is kira, astarion could probably beat him from there. but if you left astarion to his own devices and went "can you find kira" he'd give up.

i do think he might like, accidentally eat light or something though. that counts.

could astarion survive

ok here we run into some interesting questions. for the other ones ive been kind of waffling between whether im putting the character in the death note universe but borrowing their contextual abilities from their own universe, vs putting light yagami/kira/etc into the character's universe... i think due to baldur's gate being the way it is we have to put light in bg3, because astarion's backstory is so contextual and historical you cant really remove him from it while preserving all the relevant factors. what im talking about is two things

can light yagami figure out astarion's surname

what happens if you write an undead person's name in the death note

which are linked - because does light know that astarion is a vampire and therefore undead? the most straightforward way to find astarion's surname is to find his tombstone, but in order to do that light would have to know that astarion had died.

more to the point, the first rule of the death note is:

The human whose name is written in this note shall die.

where we run into TWO problems. the death note takes place in the 'real' world where there are only humans and obvious non-humans (ie animals and shinigami), so there's really no need to make any finer distinction.

but astarion is 1) an elf and 2) a vampire. so does the death note work on elves?? maybe? but an undead vampire ISN'T a human, not in the normal sense and also not in the extrapolated sense where you can assume elves and humans having similar personhood probably have the same rules apply. vampires are undead! that's very different! you cant kill a vampire with a heart attack!!! his heart isn't even working!!!

ALSO

You cannot kill humans at the age of 124 or over with the Death Note.

if we say aging stops when vampires die the first time, then astarion was 39, but then we're saying he's dead, in which case he probably can't die again. if we say aging continues as a vampire, then he's over 200, and he's excluded by this rule.

so i feel like astarion survives due to some stupid loophole.

[twiyorbase]

Opening a thread to talk about what we'll see in the second season of the animated adaptation of “Spy x Family” about Twiyor, Loid and Yor‼️🕵️‍♂️🌹

Before going into details, let's contextualize a bit. The second season was announced in December, and a teaser was released at the end of the first season. Although its length was not specified, it made it clear that it would cover what is known as the TwiYor Date & Cruise arc.

As of the date of creation of this thread, we haven't received much more information. In May, a couple of posters were released, but that's about it. However, that doesn't stop us from keeping an optimistic attitude.

That said, let's go explore what this second season has in store for us!

TwiYor Date/Twiyor bull-shot date or Misión Extra 2

The first thing we will see is one of the most loved and appreciated chapters within the fandom. It is a chapter that was expected to be adapted in the first season, but it could not be and was left for the second in this chapter, we see that Yor takes a bullet in the butt and due to her annoyed expression, Loid decides to take her on a date. With this premise, a series of events and a rather charming moment between Loid and Yor unfolds. Chapter 40.

Although perhaps considered a transitional chapter and not very relevant, it presents a couple of curious aspects. Although they are immersed in a comic situation, Bond actually contributes a lot to the development of Loid's character, especially because of something that will happen later. Chapter 43.

A chapter that begins with an informative introduction and then develops into a comic situation thanks to Franky and his attempt to win over a girl by retrieving a cat with Yor's involvement, we could consider it a subplot, but it actually lays the groundwork for what would become a full arc.

Cruise arc.

This I believe is the highlight of the second season. It is the first extended arc found in the manga and contains what are considered some highlights. Talking about this arc in relation to each character, especially Yor, would require a separate thread that I could do 👀

A highlight is that this is the first time the family is separated and away from their routine of work, secret missions and Eden. This situation intensifies their feeling of missing each other, which makes for some very tender moments and contributes to the development of each of them.

Special mention to the conclusion: chapter 56. It's another chapter that is beloved by the fandom and encapsulates the heart of the Forger family dynamic ❤️

Chapter 58

This occurs after the closing of the cruise arc. This is a rather extensive chapter starring Loid and Bond where, as mentioned in chapter 40, we can appreciate more sincere moments from Loid both emotionally and in his words. Importantly, the speech includes one of the most touching moments we have had so far from the spy.

For now, that's all. I know that there is a moment missing that is transcendental for Twilight's character; however, we don't know how much it will occupy in the second season nor its duration.

Therefore, I close this commentary based on what I believe will be primarily the plot of the second season.

If anything else needs to be added, I'll be on the lookout to do so!

If you made it to the end, thanks for reading this thread. It would be helpful if you could spread it around or comment to let me know what you think! ❤️